Peritoneal dialysis catheter implantation by nephrologists is associated with higher rates of peritoneal dialysis utilization: a population-based study

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Complications after Insertion by Surgeons, Radiologists, or Nephrologists

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative aims to increase rates of utilization of peritoneal dialysis (PD) in the United States. One of the first steps to PD is successful catheter placement, which can be performed by surgeons, interventional radiologists, or nephrologists. We examined the association between operator subspecialty and risk of needing a follow-up procedure in the first 90 days after initial PD catheter implantation. Overall, we found that 15.5% of catheters required revision, removal, or a second catheter placement within 90 days. The odds of requiring a follow-up procedure was 36% higher for interventional radiologists and 86% higher for interventional nephrologists compared with general surgeons. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the function of catheters across different operator types.

BACKGROUND

The US government has implemented incentives to increase the use of PD. Successful placement of PD catheters is an important step to increasing PD utilization rates. Our objective was to compare initial outcomes after PD catheter placement by different types of operators.

METHODS

We included PD-naïve patients insured by Medicare who had a PD catheter inserted between 2010 and 2019. We examined the association between specialty of the operator (general surgeon, vascular surgeon, interventional radiologist, or interventional nephrologist) and odds of needing a follow-up procedure, which we defined as catheter removal, replacement, or revision within 90 days of the initial procedure. Mixed logistic regression models clustered by operator were used to examine the association between operator type and outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 46,973 patients treated by 5205 operators (71.1% general surgeons, 17.2% vascular surgeons, 9.7% interventional radiologists, 2.0% interventional nephrologists). 15.5% of patients required a follow-up procedure within 90 days of the initial insertion, of whom 2.9% had a second PD catheter implanted, 6.6% underwent PD catheter removal, and 5.9% had a PD catheter revision within 90 days of the initial insertion. In models adjusted for patient and operator characteristics, the odds of requiring a follow-up procedure within 90 days were highest for interventional nephrologists (HR, 1.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.56 to 2.22) and interventional radiologists (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.58) followed by vascular surgeons (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.14) compared with general surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

The probability of needing a follow-up procedure after initial PD catheter placement varied by operator specialty and was higher for interventionalists and lowest for general surgeons.

Catheter Event Rates in Medical Compared to Surgical Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion

Introduction

How patient, center, and insertion technique factors interact needs to be understood when designing peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter insertion pathways.

Methods

We undertook a prospective cohort study in 44 UK centers enrolling participants planned for first catheter insertion. Sequences of regressions were used to describe the associations linking patient and dialysis unit-level characteristics with catheter insertion technique and their impact on the occurrence of catheter-related events in the first year (catheter-related infection, hospitalization, and removal). Factors associated with catheter events were incorporated into a multistate model comparing the rates of catheter events between medical and surgical insertion alongside treatment modality transitions and mortality.

Results

Of 784 first catheter insertions, 466 (59%) had a catheter event in the first year and 61.2% of transitions onto hemodialysis (HD) were immediately preceded by a catheter event. Catheter malfunction was less but infection was more common with surgical compared with medical insertions. Participants at centers with fewer late presenters and more new dialysis patients starting PD, had a lower probability of a catheter event. Adjusting for these factors, the hazard ratio for a catheter event following insertion (medical vs. surgical) was 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43 to 1.13), and once established on PD 0.77 (0.62 to 0.96).

Conclusion

Offering both medical and surgical techniques is associated with lower catheter event rates and keeps people on PD for longer.

Comparing surgeon- and nephrologist-inserted Tenckhoff catheters: experience from a metropolitan centre in Sydney

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is an effective home-based form of dialysis. Although several factors limit its use, the timely and successful insertion of a PD catheter is essential for increased uptake.

AIMS

This retrospective observational study was performed at a tertiary teaching hospital in Sydney with the aim of comparing outcomes of PD catheter insertion using a percutaneous, modified Seldinger technique utilised by a trained nephrologist to the traditional surgical insertion using a mini-laparotomy.

RESULTS

Over an 8-year period, 194 PD catheters were inserted. Aside from lower body mass indexes in the nephrologist-led interventions (P = 0.02), patient demographics were well matched. Time-to-insertion was significantly shorter with the percutaneous technique (P < 0.001). Univariant logistic regression noted no difference in the complication rate between the nephrologist-inserted and surgically inserted groups (likelihood ratio, 1.59; P = 0.08). There were differences in the type of adverse outcomes with each technique. Surgical procedures were more likely to have exit site leaks (P = 0.009) and peritonitis (P = 0.004), whereas procedure abandonment (P = 0.009) was more common in nephrologist-led procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study highlights that with careful patient selection, trained nephrologists in metropolitan areas can successfully insert PD catheters. Our experience noted fewer delays to catheter insertion, with similar total complication rates.

Home Dialysis in North America: The Current State

There is widespread interest in expanding the uptake of home dialysis in North America. Although kidney transplantation should be the preferred option in eligible patients, home hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) offer cost-effective options for KRT. In this review, the motivation for promoting home dialysis is presented, and the literature supporting it is critically reviewed. Randomized comparisons of home HD and PD with in-center HD have been challenging to conduct and provide only limited information. Nonrandomized studies are heterogeneous in their design and have often yielded conflicting results. They are prone to bias, and this must be carefully considered when evaluating this literature. Home modalities seem to have equivalent clinical outcomes and quality of life when compared with in-center HD. However, the cost of providing home therapies, particularly PD, is lower than conventional, in-center HD. Measures of home dialysis utilization, the philosophy behind their measurement, and important factors to consider when interpreting them are discussed. The importance of understanding measures of home dialysis utilization in the context of rates of kidney failure, the proportion of individuals who opt for conservative care, and rates of kidney transplantation is highlighted, and a framework for proposing targets is presented, using PD as an example.

Home dialysis: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

Home dialysis modalities (home hemodialysis [HD] and peritoneal dialysis [PD]) are associated with greater patient autonomy and treatment satisfaction compared with in-center modalities, yet the level of home-dialysis use worldwide is low. Reasons for limited utilization are context-dependent, informed by local resources, dialysis costs, access to healthcare, health system policies, provider bias or preferences, cultural beliefs, individual lifestyle concerns, potential care-partner time, and financial burdens. In May 2021, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a controversies conference on home dialysis, focusing on how modality choice and distribution are determined and strategies to expand home-dialysis use. Participants recognized that expanding use of home dialysis within a given health system requires alignment of policy, fiscal resources, organizational structure, provider incentives, and accountability. Clinical outcomes across all dialysis modalities are largely similar, but for specific clinical measures, one modality may have advantages over another. Therefore, choice among available modalities is preference-sensitive, with consideration of quality of life, life goals, clinical characteristics, family or care-partner support, and living environment. Ideally, individuals, their care-partners, and their healthcare teams will employ shared decision-making in assessing initial and subsequent kidney failure treatment options. To meet this goal, iterative, high-quality education and support for healthcare professionals, patients, and care-partners are priorities. Everyone who faces dialysis should have access to home therapy. Facilitating universal access to home dialysis and expanding utilization requires alignment of policy considerations and resources at the dialysis-center level, with clear leadership from informed and motivated clinical teams.

Optimizing peritoneal dialysis catheter placement

Long-term success of peritoneal dialysis as a kidney replacement therapy requires a well-functioning peritoneal dialysis catheter. With ongoing reductions in infectious complications, there is an increased emphasis on the impact of catheter-related and mechanical complications. There is currently a marked variation in the utilization of various types of catheters (double cuff vs single cuff, coiled tip vs straight tip), methods of catheter insertion (advanced laparoscopic, open surgical dissection, image guided percutaneous, blind percutaneous), timing of catheter insertion, location of catheter placement (pre-sternal v. abdominal) and peri-operative practices. Specialized approaches to catheter placement in clinical practice include use of extended catheters and embedded catheters. Marked variations in patient lifestyle preferences and comorbidities, specifically in high acuity patient populations (polycystic kidney disease, obesity, cirrhosis) necessitate individualized approaches to catheter placement and care. Current consensus guidelines recommend local procedural expertise, consideration of patient characteristics and appropriate resources to support catheter placement and long-term functioning. This review focuses on an overview of approaches to catheter placement with emphasis on a patient-centered approach.

Catheter insertion techniques for improving catheter function and clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) relies on the optimal functionality of the flexible plastic PD catheter present within the peritoneal cavity to enable effective treatment. As a result of limited evidence, it is uncertain if the PD catheter's insertion method influences the rate of catheter dysfunction and, thus, the quality of dialysis therapy. Numerous variations of four basic techniques have been adopted in an attempt to improve and maintain PD catheter function. This review evaluates the association between PD catheter insertion technique and associated differences in  PD catheter function and post-PD catheter insertion complications OBJECTIVES: Our aims were to 1) evaluate if a specific technique used for PD catheter insertion has lower rates of PD catheter dysfunction (early and late) and technique failure; and 2) examine if any of the available techniques results in a reduction in post-procedure complication rates including postoperative haemorrhage, exit-site infection and peritonitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 24 November 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining adults and children undergoing PD catheter insertion. The studies examined any two PD catheter insertion techniques, including laparoscopic, open-surgical, percutaneous and peritoneoscopic insertion. Primary outcomes of interest were PD catheter function and technique survival.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias for all included studies. Main outcomes in the Summary of Findings tables include primary outcomes - early PD catheter function, long-term PD catheter function, technique failure and postoperative complications. A random effects model was used to perform meta-analyses; risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) were calculated for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.  MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review. Nine studies were suitable for inclusion in quantitative meta-analysis (670 randomised participants). Five studies compared laparoscopic with open PD catheter insertion, and four studies compared a 'medical' insertion technique with open surgical PD catheter insertion: percutaneous (2) and peritoneoscopic (2). Random sequence generation was judged to be at low risk of bias in eight studies. Allocation concealment was reported poorly, with only five studies judged to be at low risk of selection bias. Performance bias was judged to be high risk in 10 studies. Attrition bias and reporting bias were judged to be low in 14 and 12 studies, respectively. Six studies compared laparoscopic PD catheter insertion with open surgical insertion. Five studies could be meta-analysed (394 participants). For our primary outcomes, data were either not reported in a format that could be meta-analysed (early PD catheter function, long-term catheter function) or not reported at all (technique failure). One death was reported in the laparoscopic group and none in the open surgical group. In low certainty evidence, laparoscopic PD catheter insertion may make little or no difference to the risk of peritonitis (4 studies, 288 participants: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.48; I² = 7%), PD catheter removal (4 studies, 257 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.64; I² = 0%), and dialysate leakage (4 studies, 330 participants: RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.49 to 4.02; I² = 0%), but may reduce the risk of haemorrhage (2 studies, 167 participants: RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.28 to 10.31; I² = 33%) and catheter tip migration (4 studies, 333 participants: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.92; I² = 12%). Four studies compared a medical insertion technique with open surgical insertion (276 participants). Technique failure was not reported, and no deaths were reported (2 studies, 64 participants). In low certainty evidence, medical insertion may make little or no difference to early PD catheter function (3 studies, 212 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.83; I² = 0%), while one study reported long-term PD function may improve with peritoneoscopic insertion (116 participants: RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.92). Peritoneoscopic catheter insertion may reduce the episodes of early peritonitis (2 studies, 177 participants: RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.71; I² = 0%) and dialysate leakage (2 studies, 177 participants: RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.71; I² = 0%). Medical insertion had uncertain effects on catheter tip migration (2 studies, 90 participants: RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.15 to 3.73; I² = 0%). Most of the studies examined were small and of poor quality, increasing the risk of imprecision. There was also a significant risk of bias therefore cautious interpretation of results is advised.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available studies show that the evidence needed to guide clinicians in developing their PD catheter insertion service is lacking. No PD catheter insertion technique had lower rates of PD catheter dysfunction. High-quality, evidence-based data are urgently required, utilising multi-centre RCTs or large cohort studies, in order to provide definitive guidance relating to PD catheter insertion modality.

Peritoneal dialysis in the modern era

The practice and clinical outcomes of peritoneal dialysis (PD) have demonstrated significant improvement over the past 20 years. The aim of this review is to increase awareness and update healthcare professionals on current PD practice, especially with respect to patient and technique survival, patient modality selection, pathways onto PD, understanding patient experience of care and use prior to kidney transplantation. These improvements have been impacted, at least in part, by greater emphasis on shared decision-making in dialysis modality selection, the use of advanced laparoscopic techniques for PD catheter implantation, developments in PD connecting systems, glucose-sparing strategies, and modernising technology in managing automated PD patients remotely. Evidence-based clinical guidelines such as those prepared by national and international societies such as the International Society of PD have contributed to improved PD practice underpinned by a recognition of the place of continuous quality improvement processes.

Peritoneal catheter insertion: combating barriers through policy change

Barriers to accessing home dialysis became a matter of life and death for many patients with kidney failure during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is the more commonly used home therapy option. This article provides a comprehensive analysis of PD catheter insertion procedures as performed around the world today, barriers impacting timely access to the procedure, the impact of COVID-19 and a roadmap of potential policy solutions. To substantiate the analysis, the article includes a survey of institutions across the world, with questions designed to get a sense of the regulatory frameworks, barriers to conducting the procedure and impacts of the pandemic on capability and outcomes. Based on our research, we found that improving patient selection processes, determining and implementing correct insertion techniques, creating multidisciplinary teams, providing appropriate training and sharing decision making among stakeholders will improve access to PD catheter insertion and facilitate greater uptake of home dialysis. Additionally, on a policy level, we recommend efforts to improve the awareness and feasibility of PD among patients and the healthcare workforce, enhance and promulgate training for clinicians—both surgical and medical—to insert PD catheters and fund personnel, pathways and physical facilities for PD catheter insertion.

Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters by the nephrologist (modified Seldinger technique)

A proper functioning access to the peritoneal cavity is the first and foremost requirement to start peritoneal dialysis. Most commonly, peritoneal dialysis catheters are inserted using a surgical approach. Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion is the recommended surgical technique because it offers to employ advanced adjunctive procedures that minimize the risk of mechanical complications. In patients with low risk of mechanical catheter complications, such as patients without prior history of abdominal surgery or peritonitis, and in patients ineligible for general anesthesia, the percutaneous approach of peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion is an alternative to surgical catheter insertion. Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters can be performed by a dedicated nephrologist, interventional radiologist, surgeon or nurse practitioner under local anesthesia, either with or without image guidance using ultrasound or fluoroscopy. Several reports show similar catheter function rates, mechanical and infectious complications and catheter survival for percutaneously inserted peritoneal dialysis catheters compared to surgically inserted peritoneal dialysis catheters. This article describes the percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters technique adopted at Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel since 2015. Our technique is a simple low-tech modified Seldinger procedure performed by the nephrologist and not using fluoroscopy guidance. We describe the excellent outcomes of our percutaneously inserted peritoneal dialysis catheters and offer a practical guide to set up your own percutaneous catheter insertion program.

Four steps to standardize reporting of peritoneal dialysis technique failure: A proposed approach

BACKGROUND

Technique failure is an important outcome measure in research and quality improvement in peritoneal dialysis (PD) programs, but there is a lack of consistency in how it is reported.

METHODS

We used data collected about incident dialysis patients from 10 Canadian dialysis programs between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2018. We identified four main steps that are required when calculating the risk of technique failure. We changed one variable at a time, and then all steps, simultaneously, to determine the impact on the observed risk of technique failure at 24 months.

RESULTS

A total of 1448 patients received PD. Selecting different cohorts of PD patients changed the observed risk of technique failure at 24 months by 2%. More than one-third of patients who switched to hemodialysis returned to PD-90% returned within 180 days. The use of different time windows of observation for a return to PD resulted in risks of technique failure that differed by 16%. The way in which exit events were handled during the time window impacted the risk of technique failure by 4% and choice of statistical method changed results by 4%. Overall, the observed risk of technique failure at 24 months differed by 20%, simply by applying different approaches to the same data set.

CONCLUSIONS

The approach to reporting technique failure has an important impact on the observed results. We present a robust and transparent methodology to track technique failure over time and to compare performance between programs.

Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheter is a safe and effective technique irrespective of BMI

BACKGROUND

A large body mass index (BMI) has been considered as a relative contraindication for percutaneous catheter insertion, although this technique has many advantages. Up to now, there are few studies on peritoneal catheter placement and obesity. The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with large BMI can also choose the percutaneous technique for peritoneal dialysis catheter insertion.

METHODS

One hundred eighty seven consecutive patients underwent peritoneal catheter insertions in the Chinese PLA General Hospital between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016, with 178 eligible cases being included in the analysis. Two groups were created based on the catheter insertion techniques, the percutaneous group (group P) and the surgical group (group S). Subgroups were created according to BMI > 28 or ≤ 28. The outcomes included catheter related complications and catheter survival.

RESULTS

Total infectious complication rates were significantly lower in group P than in group S. There were no significant differences in peritonitis rate between group P and group S (1.20% vs. 3.16% with P = 0.71 in early stage, and 4.82% vs. 11.58% with P = 0.11 in late stage). All other measured complications were similar between the two groups. Though the one-year infection-free catheter survival in group P was 7.5% higher than group S, the difference was not significant. The one-year dysfunction-free catheter survival, one-year dysfunction-and-infection-free catheter survival, and overall catheter survival were similar between the two groups. Subgroup analyses showed a superior one-year infection-free catheter survival of percutaneous technique in patients with BMI > 28, which was confirmed by Kaplan-Meier analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the challenges that may be encountered with patients who have a large BMI, the percutaneous technique seems to be a safe and effective approach to placing a peritoneal dialysis catheter.

Setting Up and Expanding a Home Dialysis Program: Is There a Recipe for Success?

Home dialysis modalities remain significantly underused in the United States despite similar overall survival in the modalities, and recent incentives to expand these modalities. Although the absolute number of patients using home modalities has grown, the proportion compared to in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) continues to remain quite low. Well known barriers to home dialysis utilization exist, and an organized and team-based approach is required to overcome these barriers. Herein, we describe our efforts at growing our home dialysis program at a large academic medical center, with the proportion of home dialysis patients growing from 12% to 21% over the past 9 years. We prioritized individualized education for patients and better training for physicians, with the help of existing resources, aimed at better utilization of home modalities; an example includes dedicated dialysis education classes taught twice monthly by an experienced nurse practitioner, as well as the utilization of the dialysis educator from a dialysis provider for inpatient education of patients with CKD. The nephrology fellowship curriculum was restructured with emphasis on home modalities, and participation in annual home dialysis conferences has been encouraged. For timely placement and troubleshooting of access for dialysis, we followed a complementary team approach using surgeons and interventional radiologists and nephrologists, driven by a standardized protocol developed at UAB, and comanaged by our access coordinators. A team-based approach, with emphasis on staff engagement and leadership opportunities for dialysis nurses as well as collaborative efforts from a team of clinical nephrologists and the dialysis provider helped maintain efficiency, kindle growth, and provide consistently high-quality clinical care in the home program. Lastly, efforts at reducing burden of disease such as decreased number of monthly visits as well as using innovative strategies, such as telenephrology and assisted PD and HHD, were instrumental in reducing attrition.

Quantifying the risk of insertion-related peritoneal dialysis catheter complications following laparoscopic placement: Results from the North American PD Catheter Registry

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal dialysis (PD) is a more cost-effective therapy to treat kidney failure than in-center hemodialysis, but successful therapy requires a functioning PD catheter that causes minimal complications. In 2015, the North American Chapter of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis established the North American PD Catheter Registry to improve practices and patient outcomes following PD catheter insertion.

AIMS

The objective of this study is to propose a methodology for defining insertion-related complications that lead to significant adverse events and report the risk of these complications among patients undergoing laparoscopic PD catheter insertion.

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic PD catheter insertion were enrolled at 14 participating centers in Canada and the United States and followed using a Web-based registry. Insertion-related complications were defined as flow restriction, exit-site leak, or abdominal pain at any point during follow-up. We also included infections or bleeding within 30 days of insertion, and any immediate postoperative complications. Adverse events were categorized as PD never starting or termination of PD therapy, delay in the start of PD therapy or interruption of PD therapy, an emergency department visit or hospitalization, or need for invasive procedures. Cause-specific cumulative incidence functions were used to estimate risk.

RESULTS

Five hundred patients underwent laparoscopic PD catheter insertion between 10 November 2015 and 24 July 2018. The cumulative risk of insertion-related complications 6 months from the date of insertion that led to an adverse event was 24%. The risk of flow restriction, exit-site leak, and pain at 6 months was 10.2%, 5.7%, and 5.3%, respectively. PD was never started or terminated in 6.4% of patients due to an insertion-related complication. Leaks and flow restrictions were most likely to delay or interrupt PD therapy. Flow restrictions were the primary cause of invasive procedures. Fifty percent of the complications occurred before the start of PD therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Insertion-related complications leading to significant adverse events following laparoscopic placement of PD catheters are common. Many complications occur before the start of PD. Insertion-related complications are an important area of focus for future research and quality improvement efforts.

The Utility of Sonographic Assessment in Selecting Patients for Percutaneous Insertion of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter

Background

Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheters by nephrologists is a safe and effective alternative to open surgical techniques. These patients are usually carefully selected due to anatomical considerations and medical comorbidities, with the current literature suggesting exclusion of patients with prior abdominal surgery.

Method

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of pre-dialysis patients who attended a preprocedural clinic in a tertiary center over 6 years. Procedural complications and catheter survival were assessed. Chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were undertaken. Inpatient assessments were excluded.

Results

A total of 217 patients were assessed, of whom 171 (78.8%) were accepted for percutaneous PD catheter insertion by a nephrologist. The key exclusion criteria were: ( 1 ) the clinical presence of abdominal hernia ( p < 0.001), ( 2 ) ultrasound findings of skin to peritoneum depth of > 5.5 cm ( p < 0.001) and ( 3 ) ultrasound findings of impaired visceral slide test ( p < 0.001). Prior abdominal surgery was not a default exclusion criterion ( p = 0.1), as 63 patients (37%) with prior abdominal surgery, average of 1.3 prior surgeries per patient, were assessed as appropriate for the percutaneous procedure. There was no difference in the procedural complication rate and catheter survival between patients with and without prior abdominal surgery.

Conclusion

A comprehensive preprocedural assessment utilizing ultrasound permits an objective selection of patients for percutaneous insertion of PD catheters by nephrologists. This allowed for successful and safe percutaneous insertion of PD catheters in patients who may have otherwise been excluded, e.g., prior abdominal surgery, patients with large bilateral poly-cystic kidneys, and central obesity.

Peritoneal Dialysis: A Scoping Review of Strategies to Maximize pd Utilization

The percentage of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients treated with peritoneal dialysis (PD) has declined in many countries since the mid-1990s. Barriers to PD have been reviewed extensively in the literature, but evidence about strategies to address these barriers and maximize the safe and effective use of PD is lacking. We therefore decided to conduct a scoping review identifying strategies to maximize PD use in adults with ESRD. Our search strategy included the following online databases: MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Current Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published from 1974 to November 2013. Experts in the field were contacted for information about other ongoing or unpublished studies. A complementary search was conducted in the gray literature. Websites of national, provincial or regional agencies were searched for documents regarding policies surrounding the use of PD. Individual dialysis centers need to identify barriers to increasing PD in their program and direct targeted strategies to maximize PD utilization. Our review highlights some effective strategies that may be used. Our review also highlights the need for further research into strategies to maximize PD utilization.

International Variations in Peritoneal Dialysis Utilization and Implications for Practice

In many countries, the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains low despite arguments that support its greater use, including dialysis treatment away from hospital settings, avoidance of central venous catheters, and potential health economic advantages. Training patients to manage aspects of their own care has the potential to enhance health literacy and increase patient involvement, independence, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of care. Complex reasons underlie the variable use of PD across the world, acting at the level of the patient, the health care team that is responsible for them, and the health care system that they find themselves in. Important among these is the availability of competitively priced dialysis fluid. A number of key interventions can affect the uptake of PD. These include high-quality patient education around dialysis modality choice, timely and successful catheter placement, satisfactory patient training, and continued support that is tailored for specific needs, for example, when people present late requiring dialysis. Several health system changes have been shown to increase PD use, such as targeted funding, PD First initiatives, or physician-inserted PD catheters. This review explores the factors that explain the considerable international variation in the use of PD and presents interventions that can potentially affect them.

Wang's Forceps-Assisted Percutaneous Insertion and Fixation of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter

Percutaneous insertion of peritoneal dialysis catheters is theoretically most preferred by nephrologists because of the advantages of bedside performing, surgery independence, and minimal injury over other procedures of catheter placement such as open surgical dissection or laparoscopic operation. However, blindly placing catheters in the percutaneous procedure brings the risk of catheter malposition or bowel perforation; this largely retarded it's implementation. We had previously developed a novel technique termed "Wang's forceps-assisted catheter insertion and fixation," which had been successfully applied in the open surgical catheter insertion and displaced catheter reposition in our center. In this study, we further explored the possibility of applying the Wang's forceps in the procedure of percutaneous catheter insertion both in porcine model and patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). A total of three miniature pigs successfully received percutaneous catheter insertion using Seldinger's technique with Wang's forceps assistance. The catheters were all placed in the right position and functioning well in dialysate drainage. This novel method of percutaneous catheter insertion was then performed on 20 ESRD patients. The procedure showed effective time-saving with the average operating time of 29.2 ± 3.53 min and was well tolerated by patients with minimal pain and injury. During a follow-up time of 6 months, no complications of catheter displacement, leakage, or blockade occurred. Our preliminary observation demonstrates that utilization of Wang's forceps in a percutaneous procedure conferred benefits of accurately placing and fixing catheters while preserving the merits of minimal invasion and simple performance.

Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter Insertion

The success of peritoneal dialysis as renal-replacement therapy depends on a well-functioning peritoneal catheter. Knowledge of best practices in catheter insertion can minimize the risk of catheter complications that lead to peritoneal dialysis failure. The catheter placement procedure begins with preoperative assessment of the patient to determine the most appropriate catheter type, insertion site, and exit site location. Preoperative preparation of the patient is an instrumental step in facilitating the performance of the procedure, avoiding untoward events, and promoting the desired outcome. Catheter insertion methods include percutaneous needle-guidewire with or without image guidance, open surgical dissection, peritoneoscopic procedure, and surgical laparoscopy. The insertion technique used often depends on the geographic availability of material resources and local provider expertise in placing catheters. Independent of the catheter implantation approach, adherence to a number of universal details is required to ensure the best opportunity for creating a successful long-term peritoneal access. Finally, appropriate postoperative care and catheter break-in enables a smooth transition to dialysis therapy.

Hospitalization Rates for Patients on Assisted Peritoneal Dialysis Compared with In-Center Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Assisted peritoneal dialysis is a treatment option for individuals with barriers to self-care who wish to receive home dialysis, but previous research suggests that this treatment modality is associated with a higher rate of hospitalization. The objective of our study was to determine whether assisted peritoneal dialysis has a different rate of hospital days compared to in-center hemodialysis.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study by linking a quality assurance dataset to administrative health data in Ontario, Canada. Subjects were accrued between January 1, 2004 and July 9, 2013. Individuals were grouped into assisted peritoneal dialysis (family or home care assisted) or in-center hemodialysis on the basis of their first outpatient dialysis modality. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using a propensity score was used to create a sample in which the baseline covariates were well balanced.

RESULTS

The study included 872 patients in the in-center hemodialysis group and 203 patients in the assisted peritoneal dialysis group. Using an intention to treat approach, patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis had a similar hospitalization rate of 11.1 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 9.4 to 13.0) compared with 12.9 d/yr (95% confidence interval, 10.3 to 16.1) in the hemodialysis group (P=0.19). Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis were more likely to be hospitalized for dialysis-related reasons (admitted for 2.4 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.8 to 3.2] compared with 1.6 d/yr [95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 2.3] in the hemodialysis group; P=0.04). This difference was partly explained by more hospital days because of peritonitis. Modality switching was associated with high rates of hospital days per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Assisted peritoneal dialysis was associated with similar rates of all-cause hospitalization compared with in-center hemodialysis. Patients on assisted peritoneal dialysis who experienced peritonitis and technique failure had high rates of hospitalization.

American Society of Nephrology Quiz and Questionnaire 2015: ESRD/RRT

The Nephrology Quiz and Questionnaire remains an extremely popular session for attendees of the Annual Kidney Week Meeting of the American Society of Nephrology. During the 2015 meeting, the conference hall was once again overflowing with eager quiz participants. Topics covered by the experts included electrolyte and acid-base disorders, glomerular disease, ESRD and dialysis, and kidney transplantation. Complex cases representing each of these categories together with single best answer questions were prepared and submitted by the panel of experts. Before the meeting, training program directors of nephrology fellowship programs and nephrology fellows in the United States answered the questions through an internet-based questionnaire. During the live session, members of the audience tested their knowledge and judgment on the same series of case-oriented questions in a quiz. The audience compared their answers in real time using a cellphone application containing the answers of the nephrology fellows and training program directors. The results of the online questionnaire were displayed, and then, the quiz answers were discussed. As always, the audience, lecturers, and moderators enjoyed this highly educational session. This article recapitulates the session and reproduces selected content of educational value for the readers of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology Enjoy the clinical cases and expert discussions.

Long-Term Outcomes of Single-Port Laparoscopic Placement of Peritoneal Dialysis Catheter

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic insertion of peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter has become a preferred method compared to the traditional open technique for PD catheter insertion. We retrospectively report the outcome of 1-port laparoscopic placement PD catheters in our institution.

METHODS

A total of 263 patients with end-stage renal disease who underwent single-trocar laparoscopic PD catheter insertion during a recent 6-year period were reviewed. Laparoscopic technique involves introducing a PD catheter over a stiff guidewire into the abdominal cavity through a 10-mm laparoscopic port. Pertinent clinical variables, procedural complications, and follow-up outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 182 men and 81 women. The mean age was 56 years. Technical success was 95.8%. Catheter occlusion was the most common early complications (<6 months) that occurred in 4 (1.5%) patients. Late complications (> 6 months) including catheter occlusion, cuff extrusion, catheter leakage, catheter migration, infection, and hernia occurred in 5 patients (1.9%), 2 patients (0.8%), 3 patients (1.1%), 3 patients (1.1%), 6 patients (2.3%), and 4 patients (1.5), respectively. Mean follow-up time was 39 ± 18 months. Catheter survival rate at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years was 96%, 94%, 90%, 85%, and 82%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic PD catheter implantation via a single-trocar utilizing a stiff guidewire technique is feasible and safe. This method can result in low complication and high catheter survival rate.

Overcoming the Underutilisation of Peritoneal Dialysis

Peritoneal dialysis is troubled with declining utilisation as a form of renal replacement therapy in developed countries. We review key aspects of therapy evidenced to have a potential to increase its utilisation. The best evidence to repopulate PD programmes is provided for the positive impact of timely referral and systematic and motivational predialysis education: average odds ratio for instituting peritoneal dialysis versus haemodialysis was 2.6 across several retrospective studies on the impact of predialysis education. Utilisation of PD for unplanned acute dialysis starts facilitated by implantation of peritoneal catheters by interventional nephrologists may diminish the vast predominance of haemodialysis done by central venous catheters for unplanned dialysis start. Assisted peritoneal dialysis can improve accessibility of home based dialysis to elderly, frail, and dependant patients, whose quality of life on replacement therapy may benefit most from dialysis performed at home. Peritoneal dialysis providers should perform close monitoring, preventing measures, and timely prophylactic therapy in patients judged to be prone to EPS development. Each peritoneal dialysis programme should regularly monitor, report, and act on key quality indicators to manifest its ability of constant quality improvement and elevate the confidence of interested patients and financing bodies in the programme.